Euclid If railroads are forced to equip oil trains with ECP brakes, the question is whether they will combine ECP with conventional automatic air brakes; or reduce cost by converting to ECP exclusively and rendering the cars unable to operate with cars having conventional air brakes. I wonder what the cost tradeoff would be for those two alternatives.
If railroads are forced to equip oil trains with ECP brakes, the question is whether they will combine ECP with conventional automatic air brakes; or reduce cost by converting to ECP exclusively and rendering the cars unable to operate with cars having conventional air brakes. I wonder what the cost tradeoff would be for those two alternatives.
My carrier is handling a volume of 'single car' oil business that at one terminal is aggregating about 50 cars a day, in addition to multiple unit oil trains.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD So if a crew gets 4 hours of limbo time, they cannot be called for duty until 14 hours after their mark off time. T&E personnel can only accumulate 30 Limbo Hours in a calendar month.
The law doesn't require TE&Y to be held out of service after accumulating the 30 hours. (The monthly cap of all on duty time does.) After 30 hours an employee can still work, but every time they go on limbo time over 30 hours, the railroad gets fined.
The fine is enough that my company is starting to hold out of service those who are at, or close to, the 30 hour cap. If on a guaranteed board, they pay up to the guarantee when out of service. I don't know how it works for boards (like mine) that don't have one.
30 hours seems like a lot, but in severe winter weather, it doesn't take long to burn it up.
Jeff
The cars would probably be equipped to operate in either mode, ECP or conventional. There will be times when cars won't be moved in unit trains.
I've seen newer cars, mostly hoppers, covered and open, that have extra piping and hardware that I've been told was some of the components for ECP. If ECP is adopted, those cars are just that much closer to being set up for it.
Maybe the talk of ECP being required is being pushed by those companies producing the components? I read an article a while back in Railway Age that ECP was on the back burner for most carriers. Partly because of other demands for railroad investment, like PTC.
Today's perspective from the seemingly objective analysts at RBN Energy:
https://rbnenergy.com/the-trains-they-are-a-changin-will-new-tank-car-standards-stifle-crude-by-rail-part-2
jeffhergert 30 hours seems like a lot, but in severe winter weather, it doesn't take long to burn it up. Jeff
If railroads are forced to equip oil trains with ECP brakes, the question is whether they will combine ECP with conventional automatic air brakes or reduce cost by converting to ECP exclusively and rendering the cars unable to operate with cars having conventional air brakes. I wonder what the cost tradeoff would be for those two alternatives.
If tank cars were converted to replace conventional air brakes with ECP brakes, it would eliminate the mixing in of cars with conventional air brakes with a consist of cars with ECP brakes. If this limitation were not acceptable, the cars would have to be converted to ECP while retaining conventional air brakes, so they could operate in either mode. This dual mode would be a higher cost than just converting to straight ECP brakes exclusively.
The only penalty that I see for converting cars to ECP exclusively is that they cannot operate in manifest train consists. But a number of cars can be left unconverted to run in mixed consists, and then excluded from use in unit trains of ECP cars. That exclusion would take away some flexibility, but maybe not enough to offset the cost of dual mode conversion of all cars in the fleet to allow them to run in mixed consists.
In the case of converting cars to ECP exclusively, it will not limit their ability to be interchanged with each other. So they can still be assembled into any size consist.
This dual mode issue also applies to locomotives, but that decision can be independent of rolling stock. I suspect that railroads would want to retain conventional air brake controls on locomotives rather than convert to ECP exclusively and dedicate them to oil train use only.
Jeff,
I think you are right about the railroads not wanting to convert to ECP. It was introduced as being the way of the future with full conversion anticipated. But I think the bloom went off of that rose; mainly because of the need for dual mode during the conversion of all locomotives and rolling stock. And then once that conversion is complete, all that extra hardware for the old mode is obsolete. It is a bridge too far.
So that kind of left ECP looking for a niche, and the niche was thought to be specialized unit trains of dedicated consists. I am not sure where that idea went. But now, this issue with oil train safety seems to me to have opened up a great new niche for ECP. However, this may come about due to regulation against the wishes of the railroads.
But in the bigger picture, I think ECP always carried the potential possibility of being universally mandated in the name of safety just as PTC has. So the railroads might oppose ECP oil trains simply because they would be the camel getting his nose under the tent, and lead to universal ECP.
Euclid That exclusion would take away some flexibility, but maybe not enough to offset the cost of dual mode conversion of all cars in the fleet to allow them to run in mixed consists. In the case of converting cars to ECP exclusively, it will not limit their ability to be interchanged with each other. So they can still be assembled into any size consist.
That exclusion would take away some flexibility, but maybe not enough to offset the cost of dual mode conversion of all cars in the fleet to allow them to run in mixed consists.
Regular operation of ECP only works well but what happens when the control wire breaks. broken, crushed, separated. derailment. and so forth With a separation occurs does a RR need the loss of air to stop the train? Further a failure of a car's ECP computer might apply brakes un commanded or prevent brakes from being applied. RR environment does not allow confidence of a 4 sigma or better reliability. Think of present set ups that cause un commanded emergency applications ( shooter ? ) . . If a car becomes bad ordered at some out of the way then a local with normal pneumatic only needs that to operate the brakes ?
I think that ECP overcomes those problems better than conventional air brakes. If an ECP cable breaks, it triggers an emergency application just as the parting of the brake pipe does with conventional air brakes. Also, it is said that ECP reduces undesired emergency applications compared to conventional air brakes. I don’t know of any operational drawbacks of ECP compared to conventional air brakes, and there are several significant advantages of ECP brakes compared to conventional air brakes.
I am not sure how a bad ordered set out would be dealt with if it had only ECP brakes. Maybe it would be repaired where it was set out. Just call the roving ECP repairman.
Euclid I think that ECP overcomes those problems better than conventional air brakes. If an ECP cable breaks, it triggers an emergency application just as the parting of the brake pipe does with conventional air brakes. Also, it is said that ECP reduces undesired emergency applications compared to conventional air brakes. I don’t know of any operational drawbacks of ECP compared to conventional air brakes, and there are several significant advantages of ECP brakes compared to conventional air brakes. I am not sure how a bad ordered set out would be dealt with if it had only ECP brakes. Maybe it would be repaired where it was set out. Just call the roving ECP repairman.
Technology is technology and any technology can and will fail.
ECP is a technology. ECP will fail. What is crucial to the success of ECP in today's operations is what is the failure fall back position of ECP equipment and how can it be handled in a non-ECP world. ECP will give a UDE for any number failed technological reasons. How those reasons can be dealt with by regular T&E crews in the middle of nowhere at Oh dark thirty will determine the success or failure of ECP.
Any technology that is introduced on the railroads must have interoperability with existing railroad equipment.
BaltACDTechnology is technology and any technology can and will fail. ECP is a technology. ECP will fail. What is crucial to the success of ECP in today's operations is what is the failure fall back position of ECP equipment and how can it be handled in a non-ECP world. ECP will give a UDE for any number failed technological reasons. How those reasons can be dealt with by regular T&E crews in the middle of nowhere at Oh dark thirty will determine the success or failure of ECP. Any technology that is introduced on the railroads must have interoperability with existing railroad equipment.
I agree that ECP is not immune to failure, and that there must be a fallback position in case of failure. But I do not believe that the fallback position must include interchangeability with all other rolling stock. Special operations within a small, specialized niche can have a failure fallback position that is also specialized. It also depends on the value of that niche. There are always ways to do things differently.
While applying ECP in the niche of oil train service would require dual mode to retain interchangeability, that requirement might not be much of a hardship because the number of cars in the niche is so small. So the industry might very well decide to install ECP while retaining conventional air brakes.
But again, this is ECP brakes in the context of a federal mandate, so the industry will not have the luxury rejecting both the dedicated ECP and the dual mode option in favor of simply retaining conventional air brakes alone.
Euclid BaltACDTechnology is technology and any technology can and will fail. ECP is a technology. ECP will fail. What is crucial to the success of ECP in today's operations is what is the failure fall back position of ECP equipment and how can it be handled in a non-ECP world. ECP will give a UDE for any number failed technological reasons. How those reasons can be dealt with by regular T&E crews in the middle of nowhere at Oh dark thirty will determine the success or failure of ECP. Any technology that is introduced on the railroads must have interoperability with existing railroad equipment. I agree that ECP is not immune to failure, and that there must be a fallback position in case of failure. But I do not believe that the fallback position must include interchangeability with all other rolling stock. Special operations within a small, specialized niche can have a failure fallback position that is also specialized. It also depends on the value of that niche. There are always ways to do things differently. While applying ECP in the niche of oil train service would require dual mode to retain interchangeability, that requirement might not be much of a hardship because the number of cars in the niche is so small. So the industry might very well decide to install ECP while retaining conventional air brakes. But again, this is ECP brakes in the context of a federal mandate, so the industry will not have the luxury rejecting both the dedicated ECP and the dual mode option in favor of simply retaining conventional air brakes alone.
Railroads don't own the oil cars; they just have to move them; move them without bringing the rest of their networks to a stop.
From the railroad perspective, ECP will require dedicated locomotives to be equipped for ECP operation which thereby limits their utility in the overall use of the locomotive fleet (yes a ECP equipped locomotive must be equipped for 'normal' brake operations and can be used in other service, however, that service has to be secondary to the intended use in ECP operations-thus limiting their universal use). So now when it comes time to move a Oil train, just locomotives to handle the tonnage won't do - I must be ECP equipped locomotives to handle the tonnage. If a locomotive failure happens enroute, the replacement locomotive must also be ECP equipped.
This is not to say ECP can't be done. However, ECP and it ramifications cannot be underestimated. I have no idea of the costs of applying ECP to either cars or locomotives - I doubt that either will be 'cheap'.
Euclid If railroads are forced to equip oil trains with ECP brakes, the question is whether they will combine ECP with conventional automatic air brakes or reduce cost by converting to ECP exclusively and rendering the cars unable to operate with cars having conventional air brakes. I wonder what the cost tradeoff would be for those two alternatives.
You aren't going to force railroads to equip tank cars with ECP because (other than the BNSF) no railroads own oil tank cars. Installing equipment is not a railroad problem, its a tank car leasing company problem.
Assuming they have compatible ECP.
This is where the railroads will not be happy. They will be forced to keep specialty locomotives and spare locomotives in around just in case an ECP train has an engine failure. A huge cost and very inefficient.
At that point the railroads could require the oil companies to buy their own locomotives if they have non-interchangeable cars. That would probably be a deal killer from the oil company's perspective.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
From Fred Frailey’s blog, he quotes CSX as saying that ECP will cost $8,000-15,0000 per car and $25,000-50,000 per locomotive. I conclude that neither the railroads, car owners, nor oil companies will be paying the tab for ECP, though. Instead, it will just be passed through as a cost increase on the refined product where rail shipping played a role in the production.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.